learning to adapt...

LEARNING TO ADAPT 2.0:THE EVOLUTION OF ADAPTIVE LEARNING

IN HIGHER EDUCATION

2TYTON PARTNERS :: LEARNING TO ADAPT 2.0

TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction .............................................................................................................................................3

Summary ...................................................................................................................................................4

Exploring Themes .................................................................................................................................5

Recommendations and Lessons Learned from Early Adopters .................................... 15

Understanding the 2016 Supplier Landscape ........................................................................ 17

Appendix 1: “A Framework for Institutional Decision Making” (Excerpt from 2012 Study) .............................................................................................................39

Appendix 2: Using Tyton Partners’ Taxonomy to Make Product Selections ...........42

Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................44

Biographies ...........................................................................................................................................45

About Tyton Partners .......................................................................................................................46


INTRODUCTION

“Rethinking Higher Ed: A Case for Adaptive Learning” “The Adaptive Learning Revolution” “The Death of Textbooks?” “L’adaptive learning, la révolution qui vient”

Breathless headlines like these from the past three years have heralded the great potential for adaptive learning to transform higher education. Nonetheless, investors, policy makers, pundits, and institutional leaders continue to ask whether the rhetoric behind this market is becoming a reality.

• Is adaptive learning on its way to becoming a mainstream product offering?

• Is it supporting productive new ways of teaching and learning?

• Is it addressing higher education’s current pain points—affordability, poor outcomes, and limited access?

In 2012, Tyton Partners embarked on a comprehensive study of adaptive learning in higher education, which we define as:

Solutions that take a sophisticated, data-driven, and in some cases, non-linear approach to instruction and remediation, adjusting to each learner’s interactions and demonstrated performance level and subsequently anticipating what types of content and resources meet the learner’s needs at a specific point in time.

This study sought to characterize adaptive learning as one approach within a broader personalized and online learning landscape. As part of our search for adaptive products available for institutional adoption, we reviewed offerings from over 70 companies and organizations, ultimately highlighting 10 that we found best represented the state of the market at the time. We also developed a product taxonomy for institutions to use to guide the product selection process. The results of our research were published in a series entitled “Learning to Adapt.”

In all, we concluded in 2012 that adaptive learning was a nascent market spring-loaded with potential. To what extent has this changed today?

In 2015, we returned to adaptive learning in higher education in an effort to capture ways in which this market has evolved over time, and to consider the potential impact of these changes on the future adoption of this technology. This publication presents findings from our research, including insights from qualitative interviews with leaders from over 20 institutions about their experiences with adaptive learning, and survey responses from 35 suppliers with adaptive solutions in the market.1

1. A request for information was sent to approximately 80 suppliers, which yielded 35 responses. Of the respondents, we identified 20 with meaningful traction in higher education that were illustrative of the types of solutions offered today, and we have profiled them as part of this research effort.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2014/10/22/rethinking-higher-ed-a-case-for-adaptive-learning/#2715e4857a0b383514b16293

http://nation.time.com/2013/06/06/the-adaptive-learning-revolution/

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/the-death-of-textbooks/387055/

http://www.letudiant.fr/educpros/actualite/l-adaptive-learning-la-revolution-qui-vient.html


SUMMARY

Over the past three years, adaptive learning has gone from an ill-defined concept in higher education to an important category of teaching and learning technology. This publication categorizes this evolution across five themes observed in our research, some of which have not changed much since 2012 and others of which have changed dramatically. It also presents recommended best practices for institutional leaders based on findings from our research, along with an adaptive product matrix and supplier profiles. In appendices 1 and 2, we provide additional resources for institutional decision-making and product selection.

CH

AN

GE

SIN

CE

20

12

FIVE EMERGENT THEMES FACING ADAPTIVE LEARNING TODAY

LITTLE

SIGNIFICANT

While institutions have more experience with learning through product pilots, the path tobroader implementation is uncertain

Applications of adaptive learning technology are expanding

The role of faculty is changing with the emergence of “adaptive teaching”

Adaptive learning is a relevant option for competency-based education, but only in speci�c use cases

Adaptive products are building new feature sets in response to institutional demand


EXPLORING THEMES

THEME #1: WHILE INSTITUTIONS HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE WITH ADAPTIVE LEARNING THROUGH PRODUCT PILOTS, THE PATH TO BROADER IMPLEMENTATION IS UNCERTAIN

The adoption of instructional technology follows a life cycle from product exploration and discovery to pilot, review, and eventually implementation. In 2012, adaptive learning was beginning its journey into higher education with a number of institutions experimenting with products and in some cases leading to pilots, but with very few implementations in play. Today, more institutions than ever are in the product and pilot phases, though implementations at large scale are still few and far between.

There are many reasons why institutions are still slow on the road to adoption. For one, institutions face significant difficulties integrating adaptive learning solutions into existing tools, particularly learning management systems, and into faculty and student workflows. Despite efforts to address issues such as interoperability and standardization of data flow between systems, students and faculty are often still forced to maintain multiple sign-ons and user profiles, resulting in a less-than-seamless user experience.

Of course, the current state of technical integration very much depends on whom you talk to. On the one hand, vendors report support for the most widely used technical standards, as well as support throughout the process of technology integration and implementation. On the other hand, institutions report that technical integration is a major challenge – particularly in the pilot phase of adaptive learning products. In the excitement to experiment with something new, institutions may not fully address integration concerns in the pilot phase, which can create even larger barriers to a successful full-scale implementation.

PRODUCT

PILOT

REVIEW

IMPLEMENTATION

TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION LIFE CYCLE

EX

PLO

RA

TIO

N&

DIS

CO

VE

RY

RO

AD

TO

AD

OP

TIO

N

• Build awareness• Host product demos• Select products to pilot

• Apply product in an informal or formal setting• Facilitate informational and user-training sessions• Establish a time frame for review and adoptation

• Assess outcomes of pilot• Collect insights, experiences, and lessons learned• Work with supplier to make improvements

• Integrate product into broader technology ecosystem• Facilitate user training and knowledge sharing• Invest in customizations, integrations, and improvements

Cease process, or proceedto pilot phase

Return to product selectionphase, or proceed to review phase

Return to earlier phases, orproceed to implementation phase

Continuously measure andimprove product applications

DESCRIPTIONPHASE OUTCOME


Faculty skepticism on the whole also remains high. Faculty still commonly object, for instance, to the ways in which adaptive learning alters the process and practice of teaching. Other concerns revolve around the complexity of using these products and the added workload.

Notwithstanding these challenges, the institutions we spoke with continue piloting adaptive products, even if the outcome remains unclear. Some have even moved to defining new approaches to teaching with this technology, which are providing coherence to the practice of adaptive learning and are resonating with some faculty (see theme #3).


MOVING BEYOND THE PILOT: AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL UNIVERSITY

“IMAGINE TEACHING IN A SETTING WHERE YOU KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW. YOU’RE GOING TO TEACH VERY DIFFERENTLY WHEN YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

SOME INSTITUTIONS WANT TO UNBUNDLE THE FACULTY ROLE WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY – WE HAVE DONE THE OPPOSITE, WE HAVE EMPOWERED

FACULTY TO COLLABORATE MORE ACTIVELY IN EVERY FACET OF TEACHING/LEARNING, FROM COURSE DESIGN, TO SHARING BEST PRACTICES IN TEACHING

WITH EACH OTHER, TO COORDINATING WITH ACADEMIC ADVISORS.”

Chief Academic Officer, American InterContinental University

Some institutions we spoke with have managed to address faculty resistance and to advance beyond the pilot phase. One such institution is American InterContinental University (AIU), which offers a helpful perspective on key inputs to fuel the road to adoption. What spurred AIU’s journey to implementation? Buy-in from the top, and a strategic effort to engage faculty early and often throughout the process.

Relying on the pilot experience of its affiliated institution, Colorado Technical University, AIU elected in 2012 to forgo a pilot altogether in favor of moving to full-scale implementation across multiple programs (Criminal Justice, IT, General Education, Undergraduate Business, MBA, and Master in Education). Such a rapid expansion was illustrative of the kind of transformation adaptive learning can enable, but the implementation also brought disruption that elicited concerns among faculty, particularly about the additive nature of using this technology on top of an already demanding teaching workload.

For AIU, a critical strategy was for its chief academic officer to engage faculty, both to hear their concerns and, more importantly, to enable them to “own” the process of adoption and the tool itself. The chief academic officer also worked with faculty to facilitate training in order to chart a path forward built on using adaptive learning tools to improve the faculty’s teaching. In this case, faculty were informed, prepared, and empowered, were given the chance to weigh in and to receive ample training, and were able to guide the process from the perspective of subject matter experts and teaching practitioners.

AIU offers one of the earliest examples of full-scale implementation, and the institution is now using adaptive learning across 90 courses and has 40 full-time and approximately 280 adjunct faculty using the platform for online instruction, with plans to expand its use of adaptive learning in the future.


THEME #2: APPLICATIONS OF ADAPTIVE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY ARE EXPANDING

Adaptive learning has many possible applications in an instructional environment. In 2012, these were mostly limited to non-credit-bearing environments, such as developmental education. Nonetheless, applications are expanding today to include non-credit-bearing and credit-bearing course environments, and to address various learning needs.

Institutions are using adaptive solutions, for instance, as homework tools and practice or study aids to guide learning throughout a course, and in some cases to support whole course delivery. Others are using them for remediation and proficiency-based assessments both for less-advanced students needing to reach a higher level of proficiency prior to enrolling or while enrolled in a course or program, and more-advanced students needing to demonstrate prior learning in a subject in order to accelerate time to completion. In most cases, these applications are voluntary, but have led to some notable gains in student performance, as in the case of the University of Texas’s use of LeaP by D2L in its Doctor of Pharmacy program.

CREDIT-BEARINGHOMEWORK TOOL

COURSE PROJECTS

SIMULATIONS

PRACTICE OR STUDY AID

FULL COURSE DELIVERY

NON-CREDIT-BEARINGPRE-MATRICULATION COURSES

AND ASSESSMENTS

REMEDIAL COURSES

DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION


PILOTING ADAPTIVE LEARNING IN A NON-CREDIT ENVIRONMENT: UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

“A PILOT WAS A CRITICAL FIRST STEP FOR OUR PROGRAM, AND WE HAVE LEARNED A LOT. A CRITICAL LESSON LEARNED

IS THE NEED TO COMMUNICATE THE IMPORTANCE AND BENEFITS OF THE PRE-MATRICULATION PROGRAM TO BOTH

UPPERCLASSMEN AND INCOMING STUDENTS.”

To bring incoming students to a similar level of proficiency across core prerequisites and to reduce the amount of time spent on remediation during the first-year curriculum, the University of Texas at Austin (UT) piloted LeaP in 2015 with a group of 125 entering Doctor of Pharmacy students. The program was integrated into Canvas LMS using LTI 1.1/1.2.

This application utilized LeaP to offer incoming students a six-week course broken up into four subject areas: chemistry, biology, information literacy, and math. As a part of the pilot, the incoming pharmacy cohort also completed non-cognitive surveys embedded within the platform, including a mindset survey, a self-efficacy survey, and a math anxiety survey.

Overall, statistically significant learning gains were seen, mostly in students in the chemistry module, which had the most participation. Chemistry findings even remained valid when controlling for PCAT score (the pharmacy school entrance exam).

Still, challenges persist, largely around encouraging students to use this voluntary resource. For instance, students with high math anxiety, as determined by the non-cognitive surveys issued to the incoming pharmacy class, were less likely to engage with the adaptive learning program. In light of this, program administrators are planning to improve communication to incoming students and upperclassmen to ensure that the benefits of the program are well understood, and are also considering making participation mandatory.


THEME #3: THE ROLE OF FACULTY IS CHANGING WITH THE EMERGENCE OF “ADAPTIVE TEACHING”

The growing universe of applications for adaptive learning is changing not only the way students learn but the way faculty teach. In 2012, most attention was paid to the benefits of adaptive solutions for students, with less attention paid to its benefits for faculty. Today, we see the emergence of a faculty focused practice called “adaptive teaching,” in which faculty are empowered through the use of technology to guide individual learner pathways and to direct and re-direct learning outcomes. In some contexts, adaptive teaching is helping to support faculty buy-in by further articulating the value of adaptive learning and providing transparency into how adaptive solutions work.

With adaptive teaching, instruction becomes:

1. Active, insofar as it uses technology to add focus to the role of faculty as instructors who shape the “journey” and outcomes of learning

2. Relational, as faculty are empowered to work as subject matter experts, coaches, and guides alongside students who are progressing through an adaptive curriculum or assessment

3. Involved through the use of digital features and functions that enable faculty to direct learners through a module, course, or program and to stage interactions and interventions as needed

4. Insightful at scale through the use of analytics, dashboards, and learning maps that provide faculty with greater transparency into student progress, and the use of indicators or flags to suggest potential interventions to improve the likelihood of student success

STUDENT INSTRUCTOR

INVOLVED

INSIGHTFUL AT SCALE

ACTIVE

RELATIONAL


The idea of adaptive teaching would not be possible without significant progress on the part of both institutions and vendors. Through conversations with institutional leaders, we learned of various efforts to create more (not less) faculty autonomy and control over the extent of adaptive teaching. We also observed efforts to introduce faculty to adaptive learning exclusively as a method of facilitating adaptive teaching. In some cases, this helped faculty new to this technology (and even to more active forms of instruction) to feel more confident in its use and even to weigh in on its potential use and benefits. Vendors have also made strides to address these and other faculty concerns through new product features and enhancements, which aim to define and better enable adaptive teaching practices (see theme #5).

THEME #4: ADAPTIVE LEARNING IS A RELEVANT OPTION FOR COMPETENCY- BASED EDUCATION, BUT ONLY IN SPECIFIC USE CASES

With hundreds of institutions reportedly experimenting with personalized and outcomes-based learning models, adaptive learning is gaining traction, especially in competency-based education (CBE) environments. In 2012, many leaders of CBE programs had trouble accepting adaptive technology as more than a targeted study aid or resource for remediation or supplemental instruction. Today, this is starting to change with the emergence of new use cases that showcase the applicability of adaptive learning technology in CBE.

TYTON PARTNERS ASKED SUPPLIERS, “DOES THE PLATFORM SUPPORT ‘AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT’ INCLUDING THE CREATION

OF STUDENT PORTFOLIOS AS A MEANS OF ASSESSMENT?”

VENDORS’ MEANS OF SUPPORTING AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENTS

For instance, adaptive products that support authentic forms of assessment (i.e., sophisticated assessments intended to measure real world knowledge and skills) are able to more explicitly assess competency. Our findings among suppliers included some that make use of simulations and portfolios within their platform. When coupled with inputs from an adaptive teaching process, these assessments may offer a powerful means of improving the quality of interaction between students, faculty, and learning coaches. They may also be useful in cases in which more robust forms of prior learning assessment are needed, and for signaling competency to current and potential employers using more complex and sophisticated methods. Nonetheless, the number of suppliers offering these features is low. Just over half, in fact, report an ability to support authentic assessments.

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 N=35

DOES NOTSUPPORT

UPLOADS RESULTS OFEXTERNAL ASSIGNMENTS

SUPPORTS PORTFOLIOCREATION

7

PRODUCESCONTEXTUALIZED

SIMULATIONS

5

9

18

VENDORS’ MEANS OF SUPPORTINGAUTHENTIC ASSESSMENTS

LESS CBEAPPLICABILITY

MORE CBEAPPLICABILITY


THEME #5: ADAPTIVE PRODUCTS ARE BUILDING NEW FEATURE SETS IN RESPONSE TO INSTITUTIONAL DEMAND

Overcoming barriers to adoption places as much burden on institutional leaders to engage faculty as it does on technology suppliers to evolve their products. In 2012, we observed some progress among suppliers to address institutional demands for more “faculty-friendly” products that were engaging, intuitive, and most of all, user-friendly. Today, institutional demands and vendor responsiveness are evolving in tandem with one another, leading to a host of product enhancements and extensions that promise to increase adoption.

In our survey of vendors, we observed notable progress in three key areas: collaboration, customization, and content.

TYTON PARTNERS ASKED SUPPLIERS, “WHICH TYPE OF ONLINE

COLLABORATION DOES YOUR ADAPTIVE SOLUTION FACILITATE?”

PERCENTAGE OF PROFILED VENDORS WITH SELECT COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION FEATURES

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

PERCENTAGE OF PROFILED VENDORS WITH SELECTCOMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION FEATURES

DISCUSSIONBOARDS TIED TO

SPECIFIC CONTENT

COURSEDISCUSSION

BOARDS

BETWEENFACULTY

BETWEENSTUDENTS

STUDENT

FACULTY

70% 70%

45%

55%

40%

N=20


When asked about collaboration features, most suppliers confirmed that they are offering features for direct communication between faculty and students and within these two groups. These features promise to improve faculty’s ability to stage interventions with struggling students, and to boost social learning and collaboration among peers, which helps promote the feeling of a conventional class experience within the adaptive environment – something that is often lacking in more conventional applications of these solutions.

TYTON PARTNERS ASKED SUPPLIERS TO DESCRIBE THEIR PLATFORM’S CONTENT MODEL AND CUSTOMIZATION FEATURES

PERCENTAGE OF PROFILED VENDORS WITH SELECT

FACULTY CUSTOMIZATION CAPABILITIES

PERCENTAGE OF PROFILED VENDORS USING SELECTED SOURCES OF CONTENT

PERCENTAGE OF PROFILED VENDORS WITHSELECT FACULTY CUSTOMIZATION CAPABILITIES

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% FACULTY CAN ASSIGN INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS

DIFFERENT ASSIGNMENTS

N=20

FACULTY CAN OVERRIDE THE TECHNOLOGY'S

"GATEKEEPING"

FACULTY CAN SETOR OVERRIDE THE

TECHNOLOGY'S GRADING SCALE OR SCORES

FACULTY CAN ADD CONTENT AND QUESTIONS

FROM OUTSIDE THE TECHNOLOGY

70%

80%

70%

50%

* Note: Overriding “gatekeeping” refers to allowing students to skip content that the technology does not think that the student has mastered.

PERCENTAGE OF PROFILED VENDORSUSING SELECTED SOURCES OF CONTENT

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

* Note: Vendors, on average, reported the use of 2-3 di�erent sources of content.

OPENEDUCATIONAL

RESOURCES

PUBLISHERCONTENT

CUSTOMER-GENERATED

CONTENT

VENDOR-GENERATED

CONTENT

REAL-TIMEMEDIA

70% 65%

50%

60%

15%

N=20


Another notable evolution has been in content model and customization features. A wide range of products are being offered today, from ready-made, off-the-shelf courses with varying degrees of possible customization to products that provide a platform on which faculty, subject matter experts, or an instructional design team can create a custom adaptive learning experience using a variety of resources.

Incorporation of open educational resources (OER) is also becoming more vital, both as a means of customization and a way to reduce costs. Many suppliers are now offering content that can be remixed, edited, and distributed freely. Adaptive platforms that leverage OER are helpful to developers and advocates of OER who look for ways to have their content more widely accessible. OER also allows new suppliers to have access to quality educational content, which can be difficult and expensive to procure without a publisher partner or in-house capabilities.

Taken together, these three areas of significant progress in product offerings portend how vendors will compete in the next phase of market evolution. The adaptive learning providers have different approaches to their algorithms, but increasingly they are also seeking differentiation in other capability areas in response to customer demand.


RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM EARLY ADOPTERS

Throughout our research, we asked institutional leaders and decision makers who have piloted or implemented adaptive technology what lessons they learned along the way, and what they would recommend to other institutions that are in the process of adopting adaptive learning. While many agreed that adaptive learning has the potential to transform higher education all emphasized that to make adaptive learning work, certain best practices should be carefully followed.

First, pilot with full implementation in mind. Think further out and avoid the tendency to keep this technology in the “innovation” box or to make light of its capabilities and potential contribution. Doing so creates a pilot that is not a true representation of the full implementation experience. Instead, showcase this technology early and often, and work to ensure that its breadth and capabilities are transparent and understood. Afford users multiple opportunities to test-drive new products and to weigh in on which products were most engaging and effective. Also, tackle integration issues early on. Not doing so will result in a poor user experience from the start, which can tip the scale for an institution deciding to adopt adaptive solutions.

Second, engage faculty early and often throughout the product selection and piloting process. While building transparency and trust among faculty is important, it is equally critical to establish a shared understanding of the impact of adaptive products on the teaching process. An honest discussion about what “adaptive teaching” might look like at the institution is a good starting point. From there, to augment the chances of faculty buy-in, ensure that the process is driven by faculty input from start to finish. This includes involvement in the product selection process, training on new products, and opportunities for faculty to learn from one another, share experiences, and build a common language and set of practices.

Third, ensure a coherent process of decision-making and product selection. Take context into account when selecting a product, and ensure that the process reflects the needs and expectations of all stakeholders involved. Also, make sure that everything from vision to product selection reflects the character, conditions, and needs of the institution. See “A Framework for Institutional Decision Making” (appendix 1), which offers a brief self-assessment to be used by institutional decision makers before beginning the product selection process.

Finally, execute on a product selection process with a firm awareness of the product landscape. Address how adaptive learning technology itself works (i.e., how it creates a more personalized teaching and learning environment, what concepts and techniques it applies, how adaptive algorithms work); what product offerings are available; and how these products differ from each another (our previous research referred to these as the “how” and “what” of adaptive learning). Take note of unique features and functions across different products, and ensure that these align with stakeholders’ needs and expectations.


Recognizing that suppliers have made significant improvements to their products based on institutional demand (see theme #5), we have updated our product taxonomy to provide an additional tool to support institutional decision-making and product selection (see appendix 2). This resource offers a fuller picture of how suppliers are distinguishing themselves today and provides a tool for decision makers involved in the product selection process to ask more informed questions.


Company Matrix ............................................................................................................................. 18

Acrobatiq ................................................................................................................................................ 19

ALEKS by McGraw-Hill Education ..............................................................................................20

Brightspace LeaP ................................................................................................................................ 21

Carnegie Learning/Cognitive Tutor/MATHia ......................................................................... 22

Cerego..................................................................................................................................................... 23

CogBooks .............................................................................................................................................. 24

Difference Engine by Learning Objects, Inc. ......................................................................... 25

Drillster .................................................................................................................................................... 26

Fishtree ................................................................................................................................................... 27

Flat World Education Learning Platform ................................................................................. 28

Fulcrum Labs ........................................................................................................................................ 29

Knewton .................................................................................................................................................30

LearnSmart by McGraw-Hill Higher Education ...................................................................... 31

LoudCloud ............................................................................................................................................. 32

Open Learning Initiative by Carnegie Mellon University .................................................. 33

Realizeit ..................................................................................................................................................34

Sherpath by Elsevier/(RELX) ........................................................................................................ 35

Smart Sparrow ....................................................................................................................................36

Snapwiz .................................................................................................................................................. 37

Waymaker by Lumen Learning ....................................................................................................38

UNDERSTANDING THE 2016 SUPPLIER LANDSCAPE


OFF-THE-SHELF

WH

OLE

CO

UR

SESU

PP

LEM

EN

TA

L

AUTHORING PLATFORM

COMPANY MATRIX


OVERVIEWAcrobatiq’s cloud-based Smart Author adaptive learning platform, Smart Courseware content library, and professional services enable institutions to rapidly develop, deliver, and continually improve high-quality online courses and programs. Institutions can build their own custom courses or modify courses in the Acrobatiq content library. Acrobatiq’s solutions can help institutions increase access to quality higher education, improve retention, and contain the cost of instructional delivery.

PLATFORMTwo Offerings - 1. An authoring platform and instructional design service works with an institution/faculty member to create a customized offering 2. Off-the-shelf courseware, pre-loaded with content that can be modified by an institution/faculty member

LEARNER PROFILEInputs that influence adaptive capabilities

Learner confidence level/self-assessment

Time to complete learning exercises

Performance on questions within the learning objective

Learning style preference

Mastery of prior learning objective(s)

Past performance of students with a similar learner profile

Elapsed time since last interaction with relevant content

Other: Student hint requests; Question part attempts

FREQUENCY OF ADAPTIVITY: LOW MEDIUM HIGH

FACULTY CUSTOMIZATION

Faculty can add content/questions from outside the courseware

Faculty can set/override the courseware’s grading scale/scores

Faculty can override the courseware’s “gatekeeping”

Faculty can assign individual students different assignments

Other: Faculty can set the sequence of learning objectives

Other: Faculty can schedule assignments and the number of attempts a student has to achieve a desired score

CONTENT SOURCE OER (open educational resources),

faculty/institution-built instructional

content, premium publisher content,

Acrobatiq-developed content,

and third-party applications

(e.g., Panopto lecture capture)

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Online or Phone Faculty Support,

Online or Phone Student

Support, Technology Integration

Services, In-Person Professional

Development, Instructional Design/

Course Development Services

INTEGRATION LTI 2.0, APIs

COLLABORATION Smart Author enables course

development collaboration,

including sophisticated role

management, and APIs enable

interoperability with numerous

ed tech applications.

PRODUCT LAUNCHED 2013

INSTRUCTION COVERAGE Whole Course

COURSES Any and All Courses:

Content-agnostic capabilities

ACROBATIQ


OVERVIEWALEKS is a web-based learning and assessment program that uses big data and Knowledge Space Theory to determine precisely which topics each student knows and which topics the student is ready to learn. The closely interwoven content, platform, and pedagogy provide data-driven, adaptive learning for students, as well as actionable, detailed insights for instructors. ALEKS seeks to address the large number of students who arrive in college without adequate knowledge, preparation, or skills. ALEKS closes the gap in readiness among college students and seeks to be a personalized and adaptive alternative to the high cost of one-on-one tutoring.

PLATFORMOff-the-shelf courseware, pre-loaded with content that cannot be modified by an institution/faculty member











Faculty can add content/questions from outside the courseware*

Faculty can add questions from outside the courseware

Faculty can set/override the courseware's grading scale/scores



Other: Faculty can tailor non-adaptive assignments (homework, tests, and quizzes) that use non multiple-choice algorithmic content

CONTENT SOURCE ALEKS develops comprehensive

content, including all questions.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Online or Phone Faculty

Support, Online or Phone

Student Support, Technology

Integration Services (custom

basis), In-Person Professional

Development, Instructional

Design (custom basis)/Course

Development Services

INTEGRATION LTI 1.1, Shibboleth

COLLABORATION Student-to-Student, Student-

to-Faculty, Faculty-to-Faculty,

Course discussion board for

faculty and students



COURSES Math, Science,

Accounting, Statistics

ALEKS BY MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION

* Faculty can add content from outside the courseware, but not questions.


OVERVIEWWith Brightspace LeaP, the goal is to deliver the right content, at the right time, so that students can learn more and learn at their own pace. Brightspace LeaP enables instructors to deliver more personalized experiences within their courses and to create more engaged, successful students.

PLATFORMAn authoring platform and instructional design service that will work with an institution/faculty member to create a customized offering















Other: Faculty can resequence content

Other: Faculty can influence the starting learning paths, practice questions, and quizzes

CONTENT SOURCE Lesson material, including

OER and publisher content

sources, can be created or

imported into Brightspace.

LeaP also indexes pre-existing

content in the Brightspace

Learning Object Repository.






INTEGRATION LTI, QTI, Caliper

COLLABORATION Student-to-Faculty


INSTRUCTION COVERAGE Whole Course or Supplemental

COURSES Science, Arts/Humanities,

Social Sciences

BRIGHTSPACE LEAP BY D2L


OVERVIEWCarnegie Learning provides an effective and efficient way for students to learn mathematics, through a blended learning product that combines face-to-face collaboration and print materials with an intelligent tutoring system that adapts to individual strengths and weaknesses, as well as preferences.

PLATFORMOff-the-shelf courseware, pre-loaded with content that can be modified by an institution/faculty member









Other: Specific strategies or choices made in the steps of a multi-step problem (e.g., hints are responsive to the approach taken by the student)Other: Error diagnosis and just-in-time feedback for common errors







Other: Faculty or institutions can add, remove, or sequence topics within the curriculum, with warnings on missing prerequisites or topics that are presented in an illogical order, and can automatically sequence courses to correct problems

Other: Faculty can add both pre-tests, which can be prescriptive, and post-tests

CONTENT SOURCE Carnegie Learning develops

all content.



Services, In-Person or Online

Professional Development,

Implementation Support

INTEGRATION LTI

COLLABORATION None. Collaboration is supported

in the offline part of the blended

solution or in digitalACE, an app

used in place of the text materials

and activities



COURSES Math

CARNEGIE LEARNING


OVERVIEWCerego seeks to relieve the cognitive burden associated with self-paced instruction – the difficulty of knowing what to learn and review, as well as when – by providing a dynamic profile of what the learner knows and how long they will be proficient with that knowledge.











FACULTY CUSTOMIZATIONFaculty can add content/questions from outside the courseware


Faculty can override the courseware's “gatekeeping”


Other: Faculty can remix content (foundational elements called items) into a discrete “playlist” that can be assigned

Other: Faculty can control the kind of assessments offered for each item type – turning on/off various assessments for groups of learners that will be automatically taken into account by the learning and scheduling algorithms

CONTENT SOURCE Standards-aligned content, OER,

real-time media, teacher lesson

plans, premium publisher content,

and learner-generated materials


Support, Online or Phone Student





INTEGRATION LTI 1.0 & 1.1, Common Cartridge

COLLABORATION Student-to-Student

Student-to-Faculty

Faculty-to-Faculty


INSTRUCTION COVERAGE Supplemental



CEREGO


OVERVIEWCogBooks focuses on improving both the success of the student and the teaching experience of the instructor. The student learning experience is effective for a wide range of students and can be applied in settings with non-traditional learners, student populations that have a high propensity not to complete, or with traditional students. The CogBooks platform has recently been expanded to support student collaboration, motivational tools, instructor insight dashboards, and data analytics.

PLATFORMTwo Offerings - 1. An authoring platform upon which institutions/faculty can create customized courses 2. Off-the-shelf courseware, pre-loaded with content that can be modified by an institution/faculty member









Other: Knowledge space/probabilistic techniques







Other: Faculty can configure the sequence and content of courses, including learning activities and assessments

CONTENT SOURCE CogBooks, OER, faculty, various

customers, or publishers


Technology Integration Services,

In-Person Professional Development,

Instructional Design/Course


INTEGRATION LTI 1.1 & 1.2, Common Cartridge,

QTI, LIS, XML import/export;

Coming in 2016: Caliper,

Experience API, OAAI



Embedded discussion boards

tied to each specific learning

activity within the adaptive

path, Course discussion board

for faculty and students





COGBOOKS


OVERVIEWDifference Engine is a set of design tools used by Learning Objects in partnership with clients to design and create instructionally aligned, personalized, and adaptive learning experiences that drive learners effectively and efficiently to the achievement of competencies and related knowledge, skills, and abilities. To achieve this, Difference Engine combines both personalized and adaptive learning elements to drive unique learning plans for each learner. Learning plans are personalized in terms of placement, path, and pace (relative to targeted capabilities). “In September 2015, Learning Objects was acquired by Cengage Learning.









Elapsed time since last interaction with relevant contentOther: IRT difficulty levels; Zone of proximal development; Inductive logic programming; Cognitive scaffolding; Bayesian predictive modeling







CONTENT SOURCE Proprietary client content, OER, or third-party content from one or more publishers.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Technology Integration Services, In-Person Professional Development, Instructional Design/Program and Course Development Services, Curriculum Alignment Analysis, Curriculum/Program Learning Efficacy Evaluation, Assessment Consultation and Authoring, Learning Activity (Multimedia) Production, OER Curation

INTEGRATION LTI 1.2 & 2, QTI 2.1, Common Cartridge 1.0, Caliper 1.0, IMS CBE / Extended Transcript (eT) / Digital Credentials (actively participating in development of standards and proof of concept)

COLLABORATION Student-to-Student, Student-to-Faculty, Faculty-to-Faculty, Embedded discussion boards tied to specific pieces of content, Course discussion board for faculty and students, Blogs and wikis, Multimedia assignment feedback


INSTRUCTION COVERAGE Prior Learning Assessment or

Whole Course



DIFFERENCE ENGINE BY LEARNING OBJECTS, INC.


OVERVIEWDrillster is designed to address knowledge anchoring and retention. In addition to providing personalization in the development of knowledge and awareness, Drillster can calculate how and when knowledge will decline if it is not maintained. On a personalized level, Drillster can call the student back to the learning material just before the student tends to forget, so knowledge can be kept fresh.










Other: External third-party data (experience data)



Faculty can set/override the courseware's grading scale/scores

Faculty can override the courseware's “gatekeeping”


Other: Faculty can modify the learning objective and the elements of a course path that are compulsory or optional

CONTENT SOURCE Publisher content on the Drillster,

Faculty, Publishers platform can

either be closed to the general

public (and only accessible to

the publisher’s customers via the

publisher’s learning portal) or it can

be publicly available in the Drill Store.





INTEGRATION SCORM


Student-to-Faculty

Faculty-to-Faculty


INSTRUCTION COVERAGE Supplemental



DRILLSTER


OVERVIEWFishtree is built to scale one-to-one instruction – solving Bloom’s two sigma problem and allowing personalized instruction in a traditional classroom/course. Fishtree is a competency-based instructional platform that allows courseware creation, modification, and delivery in a synchronous or asynchronous fashion – complete with adaptive learning capabilities, gated assessment delivery, and analytics. Fishtree has the ability to align all resources, including real-time content, to any competency or standard and then to the Learning DNA (profile) of every student.

PLATFORMAn authoring platform upon which institutions/faculty can create customized courses









Other: Content difficulty level (e.g., reading level)







CONTENT SOURCE All content and modes, including

standards-aligned content, OER,

real-time media, teacher lesson plans

and premium publisher content



In-Person Professional Development,



INTEGRATION LTI 2.0, QTI, SCORM,

Common Cartridge, XAPI




tied to specific pieces of content,

Context-based messaging

between faculty and students





FISHTREE


OVERVIEWFlat World enables competency-based learning through a combination of big data and algorithms, which credit hour model allows the student to operate outside the traditional credit hour. Flat World’s algorithms pull the instructor in as needed, meeting substantive faculty-student interaction on a regular basis and tracking satisfactory academic progress (SAP) when used with Federal Student Aid.















Other: Faculty can facilitate A/B testing, or the department can lock the competencies after publishing

CONTENT SOURCE Flat World eBooks, OER, Publisher

Content (via VitalSource)

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Online or Phone Faculty Support, Online or Phone Student Support, Technology Integration Services, In-Person Professional Development, Instructional Design/Course


INTEGRATION LTI 1.1, SSO, Caliper, XML, JSON

Webservices, CRM, SIS, Shibboleth

SAML for SSO, LaTeX

COLLABORATION Student-to-Student, Student-to-Faculty, Faculty-to-Faculty, Embedded discussion boards tied to specific pieces of content, Course discussion board for faculty and students, Group projects


INSTRUCTION COVERAGE Whole Course, Competency,

Certificate, or Full Academic Program



FLAT WORLD EDUCATION LEARNING PLATFORM


OVERVIEWFulcrum Labs (formerly Adapt Courseware) has developed a set of adaptive, standards-based, general education courseware that has demonstrated an increase in student engagement and performance to a quantifiable level of mastery. The Fulcrum Labs solution can be deployed at scale, helping to lower costs and expand access. This courseware helps higher education institutions increase course completion and enrollment retention by raising self-efficacy. Fulcrum Labs courseware can stand alone or can replace textbooks with a more efficient, effective, and affordable learning tool.
















Other: Faculty can create, edit, omit, or reorder any content modules

Other: Faculty can reorder adaptive stack and/or set dependencies unlocking specific competencies once others have been mastered

Other: Faculty can adjust the mastery/competency goal for the entire class or for groups of students

CONTENT SOURCE Subject matter experts (PhD level),

peer reviewers (PhD level) aligning

to AP and CLEP standards.

All courses ACE approved.







INTEGRATION LTI, SCORM, LDAP, XAPI, SAML

COLLABORATION Student-to-Student, Student-to-

Faculty, Embedded discussion

boards tied to specific pieces of

content, Course discussion board




COURSES General Education

FULCRUM LABS


OVERVIEWKnewton technology is designed to improve outcomes and ensure that no student slips through the cracks. Knewton provides in-application content recommendations to students; inferred, predictive learning analytics to help students plan their studies and to help teachers better manage the classroom (positioning them to thoughtfully intervene where needed most); and content insights to publishers, which provide visibility into how well pieces of content are contributing to learning outcomes.

PLATFORMA platform that works with publishers and other educational content providers and that does not generally sell to postsecondary institutions/faculty












Faculty can set/override the courseware’s grading scale/scores*

Faculty can override the courseware’s “gatekeeping”*

Faculty can assign individual students different assignments*

Other: Knewton.com, a direct-to-consumer product, allows instructors to bring their own content, which can ultimately be incorporated into the adaptive flow

CONTENT SOURCE In enterprise products, the content

comes from partners (and any

subcontractors with whom they

have licensing agreements).

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES In-Person Professional

Development

INTEGRATION Undisclosed

COLLABORATION Student-to-Faculty


INSTRUCTION COVERAGE Full Course or Supplemental



KNEWTON

* Note: This functionality does not apply to all Knewton partner products


OVERVIEWLearnSmart aims to assist students in achieving true concept learning and retention. LearnSmart constantly reassesses students’ progress to pinpoint knowledge gaps, adjust objectives, and map out a personally tailored instructional path. The tool then adjusts the learning content based on students’ knowledge strengths and weaknesses, as well as their confidence level around that knowledge.

PLATFORM*

Off-the-shelf courseware, pre-loaded with content that cannot by modified by an institution/faculty member












Faculty can set/override the courseware’s grading scale/scores*



Other: Faculty can resequence content

Other: Faculty can control the depth with which the content is assessed for mastery

CONTENT SOURCE Content is generated by a team

of highly vetted subject matter

experts and is based on market-

leading commercial texts.


Online or Phone Student Support,



INTEGRATION Working toward LTI 2.0 support






LEARNSMART BY MCGRAW-HILL HIGHER EDUCATION

* In Summer 2015, through the work of its Learning Science Platforms initiative, McGraw-Hill launched and is now actively piloting features that enable incorporation of third-party content within the LearnSmart platform.


OVERVIEWLoudCloud is designed to improve learning outcomes and to allow students to learn more quickly and efficiently. In March 2016, LoudCloud was acquired by Barnes & Noble Education.

PLATFORMAn authoring platform upon which institutions/faculty can create customized courses















Other: Faculty can create customized learning pathways based on assessment inputs and behavioral inputs

CONTENT SOURCE Standards-aligned content, OER,

real-time media, teacher lesson plans,

and premium publisher content





INTEGRATION LTI, SCORM, Common Cartridge




tied to specific pieces of content,

Course discussion board for

faculty and students





LOUDCLOUD


OVERVIEWOpen Learning Initiative (OLI) is designed to support not-for-profit higher education in collaborative improvement of teaching and learning as a community-based research activity. The OLI platform supports a science-based approach to the development, delivery, and improvement of courseware, embedding learning science principles; using rich data to drive feedback loops to learners, instructors, course developers, and scientists; and supporting the exploration of new questions and challenges in learning science.*















Other: Faculty can include, exclude, and restructure content at the module level

Other: Faculty can create custom courses by incorporating content from multiple course/domain offerings (e.g., combining subset of modules from psychology and statistics to create an educational research methods course)

CONTENT SOURCE Newly developed content, OER,

pre-existing author materials,

and external pre-developed

learning activities


Online or Phone Student Support,



INTEGRATION LTI 1.1 Tutor Message Format 1.0

COLLABORATION Faculty-to-Faculty, Platform does

not directly facilitate collaboration

but can incorporate third-party

technologies that do (e.g.,

Knowledge Forum for collaborative

knowledge building, DANCE for

collaborative discussion/chat)





OPEN LEARNING INITIATIVE BY CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY

* The Open Learning Initiative (OLI) was founded in 2002 at Carnegie Mellon University. In September 2013, the OLI Founding Director moved to Stanford University and founded OLI at Stanford. OLI at Carnegie Mellon University and OLI at Stanford are distinct organizations working toward a shared mission through collaboration on various projects and shared content.


OVERVIEWRealizeit helps institutions improve student engagement and achievement by enabling individualized learning, adaptive teaching, and institutional effectiveness through its comprehensive learning measurement system. Realizeit is being used to address a variety of challenges in areas such as learning analytics, competency-based education, high school completion, college readiness, persistence, college completion, and academic effectiveness

PLATFORMAn authoring and delivery platform with instructional design services that will work with an institution to create and deliver adaptive offerings









Other: Observed effectiveness of learning modality for the individual





Faculty can assign individual students different assignmentsOther: Faculty can choose competencies and learning objectives, add specific question templates, design assessments, upload learning material, and build rubrics, etc.Other: Faculty can plan lessons, decide on sequencing, and create tests and quizzes

CONTENT SOURCE An institution’s native content, open-source content, publisher content, and content from students and third parties. The system also integrates interactive media of all kinds, including Unity 3D interactions, virtual reality systems, and different widget-based assets.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Instructional Design and Consulting, Course Development Services, Training Services, Technology Integration Services,

Research Services

INTEGRATION SCORM (2004), Common Cartridge 1.1.0 & 1.2.0, QTI, LTI 1.1

(covering 1.0), oAuth, ePub 2.0, API

COLLABORATION Student-to-Student, Student-to-Faculty, Embedded discussion boards tied to specific pieces of content



(Traditional or Competency)

COURSES Any and All Course Types:


REALIZEIT


OVERVIEWSherpath is a digital first, mobile responsive teaching and learning solution developed specifically for health science education. It allows instructors to spend more time on teaching by reducing the complexity of designing, managing, and delivering course content and materials, while providing insight into where students need help. Sherpath helps students to become more organized, increases engagement, and allows them to more efficiently learn, accommodating both experiential and didactic learning. Sherpath personalizes instruction and helps health science students, particularly underperforming and non-traditional students, successfully achieve improved learning outcomes.










Other: Personalized to individual instructor’s course objectives FREQUENCY OF ADAPTIVITY: LOW MEDIUM HIGH





Other: Faculty can select lesson objectives, including in-class activities or case studies, and resequenced learning modules through a drag-and-drop interface”Other: Faculty can select lesson objectives, including in-class activities or case studies, and resequence learning modules through a drag-and-drop interface

CONTENT SOURCE Elsevier







INTEGRATION LTI 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 & 2.0, Caliper 1.0, QTI


Faculty-to-Student



COURSES Nursing, Allied Health

SHERPATH BY ELSEVIER/(RELX)


OVERVIEWSmart Sparrow is a learning design platform for adaptive courseware. Users create engaging and adaptive learning experiences that utilize active learning pedagogy, and then continuously improve them using analytics. With Smart Sparrow, faculty are in control and students are better supported and more motivated to succeed.

PLATFORMA platform and learning design service that works with an institution/faculty member to create a customized offering















Other: Faculty can change rules that drive adaptivity

CONTENT SOURCE Faculty either create content using

Smart Sparrow or import ii from

a variety of sources. Any content

that runs in a browser can be

brought into the platform.







INTEGRATION LTI

COLLABORATION Student-to-Student, Faculty-to-


boards tied to specific pieces

of content, Course discussion

board for faculty and students





SMART SPARROW


OVERVIEWSnapwiz’s learning platform empowers educators (publishers, administrators, and teachers) to personalize students’ learning experience. Snapwiz’s vision of personalized learning includes the ability to offer advanced levels of interaction (socially engaging content and tech–enhanced items), collaboration with peers and instructors, adaptive recommendations, and longitudinal reporting on student performance.

PLATFORMAn adaptive and collaborative learning platform that works with publishers and other educational content providers









Other: Learning rate of the student







Other: Faculty can deviate from the recommended lesson plan by removing or adding instructional content or assessment content

CONTENT SOURCE Publishers (ePub, QTI content),

premium content from publishers,

and OER content.



In-Person Professional Development

INTEGRATION LTI 1.2

COLLABORATION Student-to-Student, Student-to-


boards tied to specific pieces of

content, Course discussion board






SNAPWIZ


OVERVIEWWaymaker is designed to address affordability issues in postsecondary education, completion rates, the problematic trend of eliminating teacher-student interaction in personalized/adaptive courses, and problems with the way traditional approaches to adaptive learning prevent students from developing learning-to-learn (metacognitive) skills.















Other: All content is openly licensed and can be both resequenced and edited at the individual word level

CONTENT SOURCE Pre-existing OER, newly created

simulation and other OER content,

and premium video content from

the BBC relicensed as OER




Development, Instructional

Design/Course Development

Services, Additional

Training Services

INTEGRATION LTI 1.1+, Common Cartridge 1.2

(specifically “Thin CC”)

COLLABORATION Student-to-Faculty, Tools to

help faculty identify students

who need help





WAYMAKER BY LUMEN LEARNING


APPENDIX 1:

“A FRAMEWORK FOR INSTITUTIONAL DECISION MAKING” (EXCERPT FROM OUR 2012 STUDY)

The following is taken from “Learning to Adapt: Understanding the Adaptive Learning Supplier Landscape.”

The oft-cited mantra “Context is king” applies well to the adoption and implementation of adaptive learning by higher education institutions. As colleges and universities investigate adaptive learning, a thoughtful self-appraisal of key operating and instructional characteristics should shed light on which approach might best align with the institutional milieu and improve chances for successful implementation.

The chart on the next page offers a series of detailed questions in six core areas that aim to reveal an institution’s decision-making character, ranging from “Autonomous” to “Collaborative” to “Highly Interdependent.” What distinguishes these categories from one another is the way in which authority is distributed within a given organization. Understanding which model of authority and decision making predominates at your institution can assist you in considering how organizational complexity may open or foreclose certain types of adaptive learning approaches.


PLEASE CHOOSE THE RESPONSE THAT MOST CLOSELY MATCHES THE CONDITIONS FOR YOUR ADAPTIVE LEARNING INITIATIVE.

HOW MANY ORGANIZATIONAL UNITS OR FUNCTIONS WILL BE INVOLVED IN YOUR ADAPTIVE LEARNING INITIATIVE?

A. Just our unit – we have our own faculty and our own technology team, so we'll handle this independently

B. The initiative will be a partnership between our unit and one or two others, but we will be driving it

C. We're a very decentralized organization, so many units and functions will be involved

HOW DIFFICULT WILL IT BE TO ACHIEVE FACULTY BUY-IN TO COLLABORATE WITH YOU ON THE INITIATIVE?

A. We have our own faculty, most of whom are part-time, so we can drive the curriculum

B. We will want to involve one or two enthusiastic faculty, and we'll collaborate with them closely

C. Faculty will play the lead role in designing the curriculum, sequencing, and assessments, and we'll provide support

DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT STRUCTURES IN PLACE TO MANAGE AN INITIATIVE OF THIS TYPE SUCCESSFULLY?

A. We have our own faculty and our own instructional designers and have done online learning for a long time, so we're in good shape

B. We outsource some of the design and delivery work to a commercial firm, so we've learned how to collaborate with third parties

C. Our faculty drive things here, so we may need to create some new services and management roles to support them e�ectively

HOW WILL DEPLOYING THESE SOLUTIONS SHIFT THE INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL?

A. Our initiative involves developing self-paced adaptive learning courses, so the faculty role in delivery is minimal

B. We see adaptive learning as creating new opportunities to deliver a "flipped classroom" form of instruction

C. Faculty will lead the courses and manage the classroom, and adaptive learning material will be used as an adjunct to that

WHAT TYPES OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT DO YOU PLAN TO UNDERTAKE IN THIS INITIATIVE?

A. We're open to experimenting with competency-based assessment, portfolios, etc. – we'll probably try a few di�erent things

B. We'll want to engage with faculty to see what they think about that question, and design something appropriate from there

C. Our faculty are responsible for determining what counts as meaningful assessment, and we'll use our traditional methods

WHAT TYPES OF DELIVERY METHODS ARE YOU PLANNING TO USE FOR YOUR INITIATIVE?

A. We're open to a variety of approaches – online and hybrid are both likely

B. We will predominantly deploy these as adjuncts to face-to-face classes, but we may experiment with hybrid as well

C. Our faculty aren't interested in online learning, so this will augment traditional classroom instruction

COLLABORATIVE AUTONOMOUS HIGHLY INTERDEPENDENT

A

A A

A A A

B

B B

B B B

C

C C

C C C

FOR EACH ANSWER, SHADE IN AN APPROPRIATE BOX AND COMPARE RESULTS ON THE NEXT PAGE.


BenefitsBroad freedom to explore a diversity of adaptive learning models for students

ChallengesOperating as a silo means that adaptive learning successes may not transfer to the broader campus environment

Benefits Some flexibility to explore adaptivelearning options, coupled withbuy-in among key players acrossorganizational functions

Challenges Risk of low organizational ownership and potential for long delays in execution of plans

BenefitsPotential for stronger adaptive learning buy-in and more profound impact in core areas

ChallengesAdoption and implementation may well take longer to achieve, given the deliberative decision-making process

This self-assessment can be used to facilitate important discussions to inform an institution’s consideration of adaptive learning models and can make the evaluation

of prospective suppliers more productive.

COLLABORATIVE AUTONOMOUSHIGHLY

INTERDEPENDENT

A

A A

A A A

B

B B

B B B

C

C C

C C C


INTERDEPENDENT

A

A A

A A A

B

B B

B B B

C

C C

C C C


INTERDEPENDENT

A

A A

A A A

B

B B

B B B

C

C C

C C C

READING THE RESULTS


APPENDIX 2:

USING TYTON PARTNERS’ TAXONOMY TO MAKE PRODUCT SELECTIONS The following product taxonomy has been updated from our 2012 study to reflect changes in the supplier landscape. It includes six attributes that illustrate pedagogical components of an adaptive learning solution. For illustrative purposes, we have included references to notable suppliers featured in our research (see “Understanding the 2016 Supplier Landscape”).

LEARNER PROFILE

ADAPTIVE TAXONOMY OVERVIEW

UNIT OF ADAPTIVITY

INSTRUCTION COVERAGE

ASSESSMENT

CONTENT MODEL & CUSTOMIZATION

DOMAINS OF LEARNING

Course prerequisite level Unit/lesson level Learning object level

Targeted study aid Supplemental instruction Whole course

Infrequent/Benchmark Formative Adaptive/Continuous

Closed, withsome configurability

Authoring capabilityoered as a service

Open, with authoring platform

Understanding/Remembering Analyzing/Applying Creating/Evaluating

COLLABORATION

SERVICES

Student facultycollaboration

Peer to peer anddiscussion boards

Suite of collaboration tools

Tactical remotesupport only

Instructional design ortech integration support

In-person facultyprofessional developmentand change management

Student data informsinitial placement

Student data drives adaptivity during a learning sequence

Student data is dynamic following each

adaptive experience


• Learner Profile is a structured repository of information about the learner that is used to inform and personalize the learning experience. For example, CogBooks uses a variety of inputs to develop learner profiles, such as the time spent to complete learning exercises and the past performance of students with a similar profile.

• Unit of Adaptivity refers to the structure of the instructional content and the frequency and scale at which that content is modified for specific learner needs. For example, Knewton and Snapwiz both feature a high frequency of adaptivity as learners engage with their products.

• Assessment is the frequency, format, and conditions under which learners are evaluated.

• Content Model and Customization describes the nature of the product’s authoring environment to instructors or other users, and instructors’ ability to add or manipulate instructional content in the system.

• Instruction Coverage refers to the pedagogical flexibility of a product to deliver an adaptive learning experience and the scope/scale of that experience within the context of a course.

• Domains of Learning (previously referred to as Bloom’s Coverage) highlights to what extent a product can support the learning objectives within the Cognitive Domain of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

• Collaboration describes the use of discussion boards and direct communication between and among students and faculty, which fosters engagement and allows faculty to intervene directly with struggling students. For example, Fishtree’s product offers a suite of collaboration tools, including embedded discussion boards tied to specific pieces of content and context-based messaging for use between faculty and students.

• Services describes the nature and scope of engagement between institutional stakeholders and suppliers.

As institutional stakeholders progress through their review and evaluation process for adaptive learning solutions, our taxonomy provides a framework to help them make informed choices based on today’s product norms and evolutions.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This publication owes much to the support and engagement of a diverse and passionate group of individuals and organizations throughout the higher education sector.

Fundamental to our research were interviews conducted with experts across the field, including leaders from over 20 institutions, and a survey fielded among 35 suppliers, which also included selected product briefings. We greatly appreciate the input of all our interviewees and survey respondents, as well as their contribution to advancing the field’s understanding of the role and opportunity for adaptive learning to support innovative teaching and learning practices.

Thanks also to the Postsecondary Success team at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for their support of this work. We also appreciate the work of Can of Creative, which helped us to execute our vision for this report.

Finally, any errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in this report are the responsibility of Tyton Partners alone.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


BIOGRAPHIES

ADAM NEWMAN, Managing Partner

Adam Newman is a co-founder of Tyton Partners and has more than 20 years of experience in strategy consulting, market research, and investment banking supporting the education sector. Adam began his professional career as a K–12 educator and athletic coach at schools in Boston, MA, and New Orleans, LA.

GATES BRYANT, Partner

Gates Bryant is a general manager and strategy consultant with a successful 15-year track record of bridging the gap between innovative strategy and practical execution, while serving in various strategy, product management, and operational roles in the education market. He joined Tyton Partners as a partner in 2011.

BRIAN FLEMING, Principal

Brian Fleming is a principal in Tyton Partners’ strategy consulting practice. With more than 10 years of experience, Brian has held numerous teaching, administrative, and leadership roles across all segments of the education sector. He joined Tyton Partners in 2015.

LAURA SARKISIAN, Associate

Laura Sarkisian joined Tyton Partners as an associate in 2014 to concentrate on supporting growth within the education sector. Her background is focused in finance and economics and includes research on the affordable housing and healthcare markets.


ABOUT TYTON PARTNERS

Tyton Partners, formerly Education Growth Advisors, is the leading provider of investment banking and strategy consulting services to the global knowledge sector. Built on the tenets of insight, connectivity, and tenacity, Tyton Partners leverages in-depth market knowledge and perspective to help organizations pursue solutions that have lasting impact.

As an evolved advisory services firm, Tyton Partners offers a unique spectrum of services that supports companies, organizations, and investors as they navigate the complexities of the education, media, and information markets. Unlike most firms, Tyton Partners understands the intricacies and nuances of these markets and plays an integral role in shaping the efforts that drive change within them. The firm’s expertise is predicated on its principals’ years of experience working across market segments – including the preK–12, postsecondary, corporate training, and lifelong learning sectors – and with a diverse array of organizations, from emergent and established private and publicly traded companies, to non-profit organizations, institutions, and foundations, to private equity and venture capital firms and other investors.

Tyton Partners leverages its deep foundation of transactional and advisory experience and an extensive global network to make its clients’ aspirations a reality and catalyze innovation in the sector.

For more information about Tyton Partners, visit tytonpartners.com or follow us at @tytonpartners.

TO ACCESS OUR OTHER PUBLICATIONS AND SIGN UP FOR TYTON SNAPSHOTS, PLEASE VISIT: tytonpartners.com/library

http://www.tytonpartners.com/library

learning to adapt...

Documents